Australian Labor Party

Australian Labor Party
The Party for all Australians

Tuesday 28 October 2014

A future Labor government would almost certainly turn back boats if any were coming

A future Labor government would almost certainly turn back boats if any were coming



BILL SCISSOR HANDS SHORTEN  MUST RESIGN AND GIVE WAY TO A REAL LEADER = ANTHONY ALBANESE BEFORE BILL DESTROYS THE LABOR PARTY FROM WITHIN.










A future Labor government would almost certainly turn back boats if any were coming








Opposition leader Bill Shorten faces a difficult policy problem with boat turn backs.
AAP/Lukas Coch






Bill Shorten is in a awkward place on the issue of boat turn backs.



Richard Marles' suggestion
that under certain conditions a Labor government might embrace the
policy recognised reality. But the immigration spokesman’s comments were
incendiary to many within Labor, and frustrating to others for taking
attention off the government.




The official line is that the ALP’s policy hasn’t changed.



Marles, who lit the fire on Sunday, had the hose out on Monday. The
government gloated at the apparent change and then the (well, sort of)
retreat.




“The shadow minister … got turned back on turn backs,” Immigration
Minister Scott Morrison declared, a few days after Labor was trumpeting
how Morrison’s colleagues were turning back his expansionist ambitions.




Many in Labor are waiting for Shorten (who is close to Marles) to
have something to say publicly or in Tuesday’s caucus. The left will be
listening carefully for any weasel words.




The leader is caught between the politics and the party. He has
already stretched the tolerance of quite a few of his followers by his
bipartisanship on the government’s tough national security legislation,
the second tranche of which is due to go through parliament this week.




Left-winger Melissa Parke, who was a lawyer with the United Nations,
says: “For Labor to support turn backs, there would need to be a change
of policy at national conference. I don’t think this would occur because
it would be against our Labor values and our commitment to uphold
international law and human rights”.




Results dictate that Labor has to recognise that turning boats back
has been one factor in stopping the people smuggling trade, though
secondary to Kevin Rudd’s tough pre-election declaration that all
arrivals would be sent offshore with no chance of resettlement in
Australia.




Marles, interviewed on Sky, said on Sunday that the turn back policy
“has had an impact”. Labor was “open minded” about it, but had anxieties
revolving around safety and how it affected relations with the
Indonesians, who “hate” it.




“If safety and the relationship with Indonesia can be satisfied, well
then this is a totally different question”, and a Labor government
“might” turn back boats. But those questions hadn’t been answered.
Marles pointed to remarks from new Indonesia president Joko Widodo, who
in a Fairfax Media interview flagged a strong line on sovereignty and warned against any repeat of Navy vessels straying into Indonesian waters.




On Monday, Marles said:
“We’re open-minded about anything which saves lives at sea but we
retain two real concerns about the turn back policy, and in this
respect, our position has not changed”.




Pressed on whether he would argue in the election lead up that Labor
would turn back boats if it were safe and didn’t erode the Indonesian
relationship, Marles said: “I’m not going to walk down the path of
answering hypotheticals”.




Privately, he told colleagues he wished he’d put things differently on Sunday.



Changing a position is difficult and often painful for a party. Labor
has been adamant for a long time in its opposition to turn backs. In a 2011 background briefing
organised by the Gillard government, the then-head of theiImmigration
department Andrew Metcalfe said that while Howard’s policy of turning
back boats was effective at the time it would not work again.




But events have overtaken predictions and Labor’s stance.



What of the two conditions?



The Coalition’s policy has been to turn boats back “where safe to
do”, although secrecy has shrouded operations. A Labor government could
make its own judgements about safety.




The Indonesians have periodically stated concerns about encroachments
on their sovereignty, now reiterated, but whether the policy will be a
problem in the future remains to be seen, partly depending on whether
there are boats to be turned back.




All things being equal, by the time of a Labor government, whenever
that might be, it’s likely turn backs would not be a big thing. If they
were still needed, it’s probable Labor would keep the policy, arguing
satisfactory conditions could be met. It would not want to risk a repeat
of the boat trade starting again.




Meanwhile, Labor would do best to get past turn backs and give more
of its attention to the plight of those asylum seekers stuck on Manus
Island and Nauru.




There are plenty of points to pursue, questions to be asked. Papua
New Guinea is still considering its attitude on resettlement for those
found to be refugees. What is the Australian government doing to put
pressure on it? Bad stories regularly emanate from Nauru.




We are not hearing enough from Labor about the plight of the
unfortunate people in these places. As time goes on, Morrison, so
successful in stopping the boats, is going to have increasing
difficulties on those fronts. He’s sitting on powder kegs.



Melissa Parke Breaks Labor Ranks To Back BDS Campaign Against Israel | newmatilda.com

Melissa Parke Breaks Labor Ranks To Back BDS Campaign Against Israel | newmatilda.com

Melissa Parke Breaks Labor Ranks To Back BDS Campaign Against Israel



By Max Chalmers





One
of the growing stars of the Labor left has taken aim at critics of the
'Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions Campaign'. Max Chalmers reports.




Labor
MP Melissa Parke has defended the controversial Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) campaign in a speech to parliament, rejecting
accusations the movement to force Israel into ending its occupation of
Palestine is anti-Semitic and describing it as “a perfectly acceptable
form of protest”.



Sandwiched between discussions on health care spending and
Melbourne’s East West Link, Parke delivered a rapidly spoken address
late on Monday night.



“What I am to say today will likely not be popular in this place or indeed in the wider community,” Parke said.


“However, there comes a time when the injustices have so mounted up that plain speaking becomes a duty.”


Parke took aim at the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements on
occupied Palestinian territory and the death toll resulting from the
most recent bombing of Gaza.



“Recent events have left more than 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza dead
and thousands more injured, while more than a million Palestinians—who
are a proud, educated and enterprising people—are dependent on food aid
and there is a massive damage bill to be picked up again by the
international community,” she said.



“Meanwhile settlement construction in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem continues apace, each build putting a further nail in the
coffin of the two-state solution.”



The Fremantle MP also presented a petition to parliament accusing
Israel of “persisting in apartheid and oppressive actions” and asking
members to exclude relations with Israel through the boycott,
divestment, and sanctioning of states and companies involved in “the
perpetuation of discriminatory Israeli policies” including the
occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.



The campaign, generally known as BDS, has caused tensions in Labor before and embroiled Marrickville Council in 2011.


Parke’s petition was presented on behalf of Marcelo Svirsky, a former
Israeli soldier and academic at the University of Wollongong, who
walked from Sydney to Canberra to hand up the document.



“I’m an Israeli Jew who rejects Israel’s continuing subjugation of the Palestinians,” Svirsky told New Matilda earlier this month.


“I am fully committed to the principles of the BDS movement and I encourage others to join this non-violent action.”


In late 2013 an Israeli legal centre tried to sue University of Sydney Professor Jake Lynch after he refused to assist Israeli academic Dan Avnon in securing a Fellowship at Sydney.


Shurat HaDin accused Lynch of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act, but local Jewish groups declined to join the action and in July this year it collapsed.


On Monday night Parke sought to distinguish between the BDS campaign
and anti-Semitism, though declined to explicitly state her own support
for the policy.



“I am not seeking to validate all of the actions that have occurred
in the name of BDS, because it can mean different things to different
people,” she said.



“However, I do wish to dispel some of the misunderstandings around
the official BDS campaign, including that its supporters are
anti-Semitic and intent on the destruction of Israel.



“That is not the case; it is not anti-Semitic to protest injustice.”


It’s a view unlikely to please fellow Labor MP Michael Danby, who has
savaged Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon for her support of BDS in the past.



“One has to query the motivations of hardline activists in the BDS
movement, including Senator Lee Rhiannon. Do they want peace or simply
the elimination of Israel,” he wrote in late 2013.



The Coalition has re-aligned Australian foreign policy towards a more pro-Israeli stance since coming to power.


In January, Julie Bishop was criticised heavily for suggestions
Israeli settlements were legal.
http://theconversation.com/settlements-illegal-under-what-law-take-your-pick-minister-22341



Five months later, Attorney-General George Brandis endured similar attacks when he refused to label East Jerusalem as “occupied”.


Parke has emerged as a consistent voice of Labor dissent in recent
months, speaking out against collusion with the Coalition on issues such as national security legislation.



In the past she has also criticised Labor for mimicking the Coalition’s hard line on asylum seekers.


You can watch the full BDS speech from Parke here.




PrintPrint  
 
 
googleplus 

Monday 27 October 2014

Gough Whitlam's memorial is standing room only

Gough Whitlam's memorial is standing room only

Gough Whitlam's memorial is standing room only




Date
  • 13 reading now

Damien Murphy





Huge public outpouring of affection: Former prime minister Gough Whitlam.
Huge public outpouring of affection: Former prime minister Gough Whitlam. Photo: Steven Siewert


There has been a rush on seats for Gough Whitlam's state
memorial service, with nearly twice as many people applying as there
were available spaces.





Late on Sunday afternoon the Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet, which is handling applications, had received nearly
3966requests. The Sydney Town Hall can accommodate only 2000 people.




Many will miss being inside the building for Australia's largest memorial service in living memory.



Advertisement
The choice of the Sydney Town Hall has bemused some who had
wondered about a bigger venue. But the Whitlam family has been involved
in planning every detail of the memorial for years and the Sydney Town
Hall, as "the people's place", was deemed the most suitable venue.




The Whitlam children – Tony, Nick, Stephenand Catherine –
have organised the service, which will take place on November 5 at 11am.




Senator John Faulkner, who had continued to visit Mr Whitlam
every week until his death, and former Whitlam speechwriter
GrahamFreudenberg, are among those who will deliver tributes.




Mr Whitlam's funeral is a private family affair.



The memorial is shaping as the largest public display of
affection for a political leader since the funeral of Robert Menzies in
May 1978, when the great and good attended the service in Scots' Church,
Melbourne and hundreds of thousands lined the streets to see his
funeral cortege pass on the way to the Springvale crematorium.




Over the years many came to believe Mr Whitlam had minutely planned his memorial services.



One of the fondest came in the political commentator Laurie Oakes' 2008 book Power Plays: The Real Stories of Australian Politics
in which he posits the Whitlam funeral plans and suggests not only
Sydney Town Hall but a catafalque bearing the coffin proceeding to the
Mortuary Station, where he would be taken to Canberra to lie in state.




Mr Whitlam did little to disabuse such flourishes of
immortality. But Mr Oakes also revealed the music that may be heard on
Wednesday week.




"One of the pieces Whitlam has selected is Va, pensiero, the slaves' chorus from Verdi's opera Nabucco which gave expression to the Italian people's aspirations for liberty and self-government. Va, pensiero became the theme song of Garibaldi's followers during the Risorgimento – the uprising to unite Italy," Oakes wrote.



"The second piece he has nominated is more esoteric, but no less Whitlamesque – The March of the Consular Guard at Marengo,
by an obscure French composer, celebrating one of Napoleon's great
victories. Whitlam was fascinated by Napoleon even as a child, but his
sister, Freda, once told me that it was not so much the warlike side of
Napoleon that appealed to young Gough as the French emperor's civic
achievements and the legal system he established."




Sunday 26 October 2014

Gough: progress despite the haters - The AIM Network

Gough: progress despite the haters - The AIM Network



Gough: progress despite the haters














It’s been a sad week. I wasn’t alive when Gough Whitlam was Prime
Minister, but my parents brought me up to understand that he was a hero.
When I asked mum this week how she and dad, who were around my age when
Gough was dismissed, could live through this time without being driven
insane with the injustice of it all, she told me how they stayed up all
night, too angry to sleep, plotting revenge on Malcolm Fraser. But what
more could they do back then? There was no quick way to start a
protest movement like there is now, via Facebook and Twitter. There
wasn’t even a way to send chain emails to bring people together.



When I heard Gough had died, I sent my condolences first to my
parents, who have been staunch unwavering Labor supporters since their
university days. And then I tweeted that when I met Gough, just one
time, at Tanya Plibersek’s Christmas Party, he said to me ‘nice to meet
you comrade’. Unlike Malcolm Fraser, whose values have moved away from
the Liberal Party as he aged, Gough stuck by the Labor Party his entire
life. Because his values are Labor values. The public good. Equal
opportunity. Universal education. Universal healthcare. And of course
the pragmatism, character and political will to get good things done. In
three years, Gough’s Labor government achieved amazing things which
every Australian is still benefiting from. Gough makes me proud to
support Labor. And I am as proud to support Labor today as my parents
were in 1975.



The way you hear people speak about Gough now, from both sides of
politics, you’d swear he had a term as long as Menzies. But he didn’t.
He was incredibly unpopular and his dismissal apparently caused a
political rift the likes this country had never seen. And not everything
he did was perfect. Of course it wasn’t. He was the Prime Minister. He
was making decisions on behalf of the country hundreds of times a day.
No matter how great Gough was, he was human like the rest of us.



One example of this ‘less than perfectness’ that my mum reminded me
about was that many progressive people were disappointed when Gough
didn’t support the independence of East Timor and instead sided with
Indonesia. Many progressives preferred Gough’s more left-wing colleague
Jim Cairns and perhaps if today’s crop of journalists had been around
then, leadership tensions would have been big news. Even though the
Greens have disgracefully and offensively claimed Gough’s legacy as
their own this week, presumably waiting until he died so that the great
Labor man couldn’t complain, you can image just how Greens would have
responded to Gough’s East Timor decision at the time, had they been
there. You’ve all seen the way Greens supporters talk about the evils of
the Labor Party, and how they’ve ripped up their support of Labor and
written the party off for a lifetime because of Labor’s asylum seeker
policy. There is no compromise with these people. There is no
pragmatism. There is no acknowledgement that politicians might sometimes
make mistakes or be weaker than they should be or scared or unwise.
There’s no acknowledgment that major parties, by their very nature, are
broad churches that must compromise in order to survive. And that’s what
made the Greens opportunistic grave-robbing promotional advertisement
using Labor’s greatest leader so very distasteful and so very offensive.
Gough hadn’t even been buried yet and he would have already been
turning in his grave. He knew how hard it was to work a great policy
idea into a great policy. Which is exactly what the Greens have no
experience doing, and no right to take credit for when all they really
want to do is ignore this hard work and continue to attack Labor from
the left.



What I’ve learned this week is that Labor leaders will always be more
popular after their time in office. I think we’re already seeing this
in the way that the public admire Gillard not very long after her
opinion polls were as low as Gough’s. Because Labor reforms are
enduring. They might not be perfect at the time, they might not go as
far as the Greens would like them to, which is irrelevant when you
consider the Greens don’t actually have to fight to turn ideas into
policies. And of course Labor governments and oppositions will make
mistakes and will be lambasted by their own supporters amongst others
and will hopefully stick to their values in the end.



I have no doubt that the same values that drove Gough also drive the
modern Labor Party. It’s not fashionable, nor popular, to say this. But I
don’t care. I’ll be called a hack, an apologist, a
rusted-on-one-eyed-in-denial-groupie, even perhaps, as I have been
called, a murderer of asylum seekers. If Twitter is anything to go by,
it’s far more vogue to be a left-winger whose taken a moral stand
against Labor and will NEVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN AND WILL SHIT ON THEM
AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY because of asylum seeker policy, national security
laws, gay marriage, single-mothers on the dole or a range of other
cherry-picked-deal-or-no-deal-make-or-break policies which seem to turn
some people into angry-Labor-haters. These haters would no doubt have
reacted the same way to Gough on the issue of East Timor. In modern
times, it’s Bill Shorten the haters hate and we hear constantly how they
can’t possibly ever vote for Labor ever again. But apparently these
very same haters loved Gough Whitlam and he was perfect in retrospect. I
can imagine they’ll be telling their kids in 30 years’ time that the
one-term Abbott government did its best, but failed to completely undo
the enduring reforms of the Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard
Labor governments. But where are these haters now now? Why aren’t they
getting their hands dirty helping these reforms to eventuate and
defending those they value? Where are they now when Labor needs every
progressive’s eye on the one-term-Tony prize? They’re still bitching
about whatever deal breaker policy it is this week which appears to
override their support of every other Labor policy which we can only
assume they do agree with because they haven’t ranted their opposition
to it yet.



One thing I’ve learned about politics is that, like life, it’s
complicated. I’m proud to stand by Labor while they keep fighting the
good fight. Implementing good public policy isn’t about ideological
purity. It’s about outcomes. Outcomes can be messy, ugly, and usually
less than perfect and can make enemies of powerful people. Progress
doesn’t often come about in a revolution – it can be just a preference
over something worse. But any progress is better than no progress. And
of course it’s preferential to be going forwards, however slowly, rather
than backwards like we are under the Abbott government.



My support of the Labor Party isn’t about aligning my identity so
closely to the party that the minute they do something I disagree with,
my faith crumbles irrevocably and I turn my back forever on the movement
and become bitter and twisted, and likely to lash out. I don’t hold the
unobtainable expectation that the Labor party will be everything I want
them to be all the time without fail. How is it even possible to be
everything to everyone when everyone has different opinions about what
this ideal looks like? Being a Labor supporter is about supporting
progressive policies that align with my values. This means taking the
good with the bad, disagreeing when you disagree and giving credit when
credit’s due – all in equal measure.



I don’t think Gough got enough credit for his brilliant political
career while he was in power, just as Labor gets no credit for their
previous two terms, nor for the work they are doing in opposing Abbott.
People always wait to say the nicest things about people after they’re
dead – when it’s too late for them to appreciate the compliments. I keep
this in mind while I watch in frustration modern Labor deal with the
exact same situation. Gough supported Labor to the end. I’m happy to
wait 30 years for Labor to get credit, as long as in the meantime, they
keep reforming. Because it’s the progressive outcomes that are
important. Far more important than what haters say today.



Share this:

John Faulkner prods parliament along fine line between security and liberty

John Faulkner prods parliament along fine line between security and liberty




John Faulkner prods parliament along fine line between security and liberty




Labor stalwart quotes history to remind MPs that political brinkmanship merely alienates voters






passport stock

Australians are relying on the government and the opposition to get public policy right on security legislation.
Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP



John Faulkner once delivered his advice almost exclusively in-house,
in the quiet of a prime ministerial office, in the back of a
commonwealth car – the quintessential man in the room.



Since opting out of the room, a development coinciding more or less
with the room becoming uninhabitable courtesy of the rolling debacle
Labor visited on itself between 2010 and 2013, Faulkner delivers his
advice sparingly, and in public.



Over the past couple of weeks, the Labor man has made two substantial interventions. A couple of weeks ago, he reminded
colleagues that trust was currency in politics. Without trust,
governments lacked a community mandate, and without a community mandate,
politics could do little apart from posture, carve up the spoils and
further alienate the voters. Major party politics could wake up, or it
could self-destruct.



Now Faulkner has stepped into the national security frame, publishing a substantial essay
in the Australian Financial Review which looks calmly and resolutely
through the low-rent binary constructs, the intraday political tactics
and brinkmanship of the “conversation” Australia is having about this
issue.



Faulkner does what he often does in an effort to steady a listing ship – he looks to history.


The Labor man steps the reader through a century or so of
intelligence history in this country before building to his point, and
it’s a simple one: with great power comes great accountability. If the
security environment warrants a significant expansion of surveillance
powers, that is precisely when parliaments and the various agencies of
accountability need to step forward and assert authority, not step back
and leave it to the “experts”.



Hardly rocket science, this – in fact the checks and balances
proposition is generally held to be one of the basic tenets of a
functioning liberal democracy.



But thus far, this most basic principle has lacked forceful and
coherent articulation. Parliament’s role is not to rubber-stamp
wishlists from intelligence agencies and police – its role is to give
the agencies precisely the powers they need to do their job and, given
those powers are extensive and intrusive, parliament’s role is then to
ensure those powers are not abused.



The point of Faulkner’s intervention is to remind whomever might need
reminding that governments and parliament have two roles, and both are
important.



Governments and parliaments of course need to ensure everything
proportionate and necessary is done to allow police and intelligence
agencies to manage real, present and evolving security threats; and they
also need to safeguard us from potential abuses by these agencies.



The two recent contributions from Faulkner have a common theme.
Politics, when it has confidence in itself, the clarity to understand
its true purpose and the courage of its convictions, remains a powerful
agent of good, of public interest, of policy rationality, of human
progress. If politics doesn’t stand up for its own capacity to safeguard
and enhance democracy, then the voters are ultimately the losers. If
politics is always implementing someone else’s agenda, doing it without
careful reference to evidence, and doing it in a vacuum, then it is
little more than an empty vessel.



The security intervention also has a specific purpose. Faulkner, as a
senior man of the left, clearly believes he has a role to play in
setting out some terms by which the progressive wing of the Labor party
can remain critical, yet constructive, in the debate.



The recent break-out
by Anthony Albanese, who publicly disavowed security laws he had
recently helped pass, reflects (in part) the pressure progressive Labor
is under courtesy of Bill Shorten’s decision to play “me too” on
national security. The Greens are taking no prisoners at the local
level.



From my vantage point, it looks as though Faulkner is attempting to
stake out some basic intellectual territory which can provide heft and
focus to Labor’s response to legislation coming up before the end of the
year.



Labor people have been mouthing the balancing imperative as a
principle since Abbott first unleashed the debate, but seem not to
really comprehend what they are talking about. It’s clear from Shorten’s
airy, once-over-lightly and sometimes confused public performances in
this space that not nearly enough attention is being given to nuts and
bolts.



The shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, indicated clearly
that Labor would not allow a law to be passed that criminalised
reporting of special intelligence operations – then Labor duly passed a
law that criminalised reporting of intelligence operations. It’s still
not entirely clear how or why that happened.



Voters are relying on both the government and the opposition to get
this profoundly important area of public policy right, to hit the right
balance between security and liberty.



And that process might just require some constructive conflict.


Great ideas needed to fulfil Gough Whitlam's vision

Great ideas needed to fulfil Gough Whitlam's vision

Great ideas needed to fulfil Gough Whitlam's vision




Date








Zealous reformer: Former prime minister Gough Whitlam.
Zealous reformer: Former prime minister Gough Whitlam. Photo: peter@peteradams.com







Under the banner "It's Time", Gough Whitlam came to power as a
one-man liberating army with a reform program so vast it was almost
omnivorous. But it came down to one thing: making all Australians feel
good about themselves and their place in the world.




To what extent has that legacy survived? What big ideas are required to see the big man's vision fulfilled? 




In thinking about this question, former governor-general
Quentin Bryce reflected on her friendship with Mr Whitlam and how he
maintained his humour, charm and courtesy through the last five years of
his life, when he became very frail. 





Former Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce.
Former Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce. Photo: Andrew Meares






"They were very tough years, and I always came away deeply
affected with his dignity," she says. "He would always insist on taking
me to the lift at the end of our meetings, which always had a formality
about them. I'd walk away and say to my colleagues, 'That's what dignity
means. It is what human rights are about.' And so I've been reflecting
on [Whitlam's] enormous contribution to the development of human rights
law and practice."





But in her work, Dame Quentin finds that dignity is too often
not afforded our most vulnerable people. As patron of Epilepsy
Australia, she hears people with epilepsy talking about the
discrimination and stigma they face. She talks of meeting a young
indigenous man who had been in a fight and asking him what he wanted to
be when he grew up. "He said he didn't want to be anything." 




In August she was appointed the chair of a new taskforce
aimed at reducing domestic violence incidents in Queensland. ``I can't
believe that in 2014 we see violence against women getting worse - and
it is."





Philosopher Peter Singer.
Philosopher Peter Singer. Photo: Georgia Metaxas






She says the biggest idea Australia needs to embrace "is to
get real about the big ideas that have been around for while. Making
human rights a priority, and not giving up on on our ambitions for zero
tolerance for violence against women".




A commitment to new ideas and risk-taking is a priority for
mental health advocate Patrick McGorry - professor of youth mental
health at the University of Melbourne, and Australian of the Year for
2010. Whereas Whitlam was capitalising and channelling the energy of a
worldwide revolution of idealism - the energies of the 60s today, are
met with cynicism and crippled by a ``culture of risk-management and
materialism", McGorry says.




McGorry suggests creating a national fund for people with new
ideas.  ``As a nation we need to support risk-taking around innovation
so it isn't left to markets and venture capitalists ... We had three
years of reform that we have been living off the back of for 30 years.
We need to make reform part of the future."





Historian Dr. Clare Wright.
Historian Dr. Clare Wright. Photo: John Woudstra






A retreat from materialism is high on the wish list of other leading Australian thinkers. 



Peter Singer is professor of bioethics, Princeton University,
and  a laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and
Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. In an email, he writes
that ``Whitlam came to power after a very long period of conservative
rule, and there were many big ideas waiting to be taken up.  It's not so
easy to find such ideas today".




Singer's desire is to see Australia focus on a way of life
that is less devoted to consumerism, and more to building a community in
which we focus on long-term values such as building a world in which
everyone has enough to live decently, and protecting our planet from
environmental damage." 





Professor Barry Jones.
Professor Barry Jones. Photo: Eddie Jim






Dr Fiona Stanley is a leading researcher and advocate for
child and maternal health. She convinced then prime minister John Howard
in 2002 to establish the Australian Research Alliance for Children and
Youth. Currently she's campaigning for an Australian National
Development Index - an alternative to GDP as a barometer of national
health. 




``This is a big idea that goes to the very fabric of our
society," she says. ``The neo-conservative economic GDP-driven societies
are starting to fail. And what I think we need to look at is another
way of measuring the nation's well-being to ensure that decision-making
[at a political level] benefits the important things, such as early
child development, climate change, [financial and social] equality."




She points to the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, which
indicates there is poor social health while GDP is climbing. ``It's a
wake-up call. Your GDP might be going OK but your society is not."





Lasting legacy: Gough Whitlam in 1974.
Lasting legacy: Gough Whitlam in 1974.






In effect, it would lead to a change in consciousness.
``People may say this is an elite activity. It's not. In Canada it made
ordinary people think about where their society is heading."




Fiona Canny is the head of campaign for Oaktree, the
youth-led movement to end world poverty that has quietly raised millions
of dollars to that end. She says that values of compassion and equality
are ingrained in Australia's historical vision of itself, and yet
Australian people need to identify with them better. She points to the
cutting of foreign aid by the Abbott government - which at the same time
has not closed tax-dodging loopholes for multinational companies, that
in effect have taken more than a billion dollars off the national bottom
line.




Ms Canny's vision of fairness is a simple one: the government
should do more to tackle corporate tax avoidance, "and use those
recovered funds to fulfil our commitments as international citizens and
give our fair share of foreign aid".




Associate Professor Clare Wright is principal research fellow
in history at La Trobe University, and winner of the Stella Prize for The Forgotten Rebels of Eureka.
Bipartisan support on climate policy, a treaty with our indigenous
people, and Australia becoming a republic are among the big ideas that
should no longer be neglected. Her most ``radical idea" is to abolish
all funding to private schools. ``Make them truly private and put all
the tax money into the public system. How many people on Facebook this
week thanked Gough for their education. My children are not going to
have that. It's disgraceful that a country of such incredible wealth
performs so badly on public education. If we're going to say Australians
value fairness, we should live up to it."




To achieve this end, a reappraisal of what it means to care
for Australia - such that love of country doesn't degenerate into vulgar
nationalism - is in order says Raimond Gaita, professorial fellow in
the Melbourne Law School, and Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy at
King's College London.




``Love of country is distorted in Australian politics. It's
partly because we are suffering a political illiteracy now," says
Professor Gaita. ``If you think of the complex problems, of the terrible
turmoil in the world so awfully expressed now by ISIL, that  we can
respond to that with the concept of Team Australia is shameful."




 Former minister for science and technology Barry Jones notes
that Whitlam took the demonology out of foreign policy. ``If you
reflect on what happened in the 70s, there was an idea that if we lost
the war in Vietnam we were doomed. This was a time when there were
television ads with yellow arrows coming down [to Australia from Asia]
indicating they were coming to get us. Now the mineral and property
industries are saying they're not coming fast enough."




At the same time, with the horrors of the Middle East, ``the
demonology is coming back. If you characterise the enemy as evil, you
can't talk it through. At the moment, it's spooky stuff. There is no
rational analysis at all, although Julie Bishop is making an attempt.
But on the whole, on the refugee issue, it's a beat-up of Olympian
proportion to create the illusion that we face a diabolical threat."




But perhaps until we can make peace with our own past, we won't be able to navigate sensibly the troubles of the world.



Former Greens leader Bob Brown believes a true reconciliation
with our indigenous people could be achieved by establishing a memorial
to ``the civil war, the war of defence of the Aboriginal people from
all of us who came later. It's a foundational part of the nation's
history and a memorial would allow us to honestly come to grips with the
bloodshed, dispossession and cultural destruction - and it would be
healthy for whites as much as for blacks. You'd name the dead from both
sides, where the names are available."